Was it really wise to exchange a deserter for five Gitmo terrorists?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

The point, for those who lack the ability to understand it, is to note that people seem to be only complaining because Obama was involved. It is a common theme, complaining about deficit spending, getting involved with foreign conflicts, releasing prisoners from Guantanamo, etc...

As details are coming out, the soldier has been defamed by the right-wing and those released weren't particularly dangerous.

It seems to be quite the pattern that if anyone criticizes Obama one attacks the criticizer instead of the argument.

Pointing out partisan hypocrisy is relevant. Especially when the base of the charges being made against Obama seem to be losing veracity.

Surely it should be possible to legitimately disagree with something Obama has done?

Liberals do it all the time... and typically over stuff he is actually guilty of.

You yourself have made a big fuss about signing statements in the past, so where is your criticism of Obama's reliance on a signing statement to effectuate this trade for Bergdahl without notifying congress?

There would be a Moore-Coulter here, with a potential soldier's life in the balance requiring expediency.

Did you not actually care that much about signing statements after all?

W used them a lot more than Obama has. So Obama doesn't seem too guilty of it.

What is interesting is that while the hatred of this US soldier seems to be based on false premises, you are trying to change the subject.

 

[dismal]

Pointing out partisan hypocrisy is relevant.

When you find someone actually doing it feel free to point it out. The problem here seems to be skipping that "find someone actually doing it" part.

W used them a lot more than Obama has. So Obama doesn't seem too guilty of it.

So, then just to confirm you're defending Obama's use of signing statements in this matter?

Should we conclude that when you previously seemed to be against them that was just partisan hackery?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When you find someone actually doing it feel free to point it out. The problem here seems to be skipping that "find someone actually doing it" part.

W used them a lot more than Obama has. So Obama doesn't seem too guilty of it.

So, then just to confirm you're defending Obama's use of signing statements in this matter?

Should we conclude that when you previously seemed to be against them that was just partisan hackery?

Obama's use of signing statements seems to be in line with the previous Presidents before him, excluding W. So his use of them is not unprecedented nor overhanded. His use of signing statements is also grossly off-topic.

 

[ksen]

Did you not actually care that much about signing statements after all?

Thus beginneth the Great Dismal Derail.

pbuh

 

[funinspace]

Meanwhile....yesterday while walking, I saw a VFW sign welcoming the guy home. That was kind of nice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile....yesterday while walking, I saw a VFW sign welcoming the guy home. That was kind of nice.

This seems like such a drastic gamble by the right-wing. Demanding hearings over the release of the prisoners in exchange for this alleged deserter. This is an election year. Imagine the ads if/when they determine he didn't desert, he did wander off for a little bit, but he wasn't a deserter (especially under fire). Elected officials verbally attacking an American POW in public? The right-wing assaulting the guy online and on the radio. If he isn't guilty of a great military crime, these guys are in for an unbelievable attack ad assault in October/November.

 

[funinspace]

Meanwhile....yesterday while walking, I saw a VFW sign welcoming the guy home. That was kind of nice.

This seems like such a drastic gamble by the right-wing. Demanding hearings over the release of the prisoners in exchange for this alleged deserter. This is an election year. Imagine the ads if/when they determine he didn't desert, he did wander off for a little bit, but he wasn't a deserter (especially under fire). Elected officials verbally attacking an American POW in public? The right-wing assaulting the guy online and on the radio. If he isn't guilty of a great military crime, these guys are in for an unbelievable attack ad assault in October/November.

Well, (I think) most of the crazier attacks are from the right wing groupies, not so much from Repug Congressional Critters. As long as the Repug candidates don't join in, I don't think it would matter much to the independent voters.

Sadly, my redneck, evangelical, teabagger relatives have joined the Facebutt smear campaign...nothing like good gossip and slander from the mouths of evangelicals...

 

[dismal]

When you find someone actually doing it feel free to point it out. The problem here seems to be skipping that "find someone actually doing it" part.

W used them a lot more than Obama has. So Obama doesn't seem too guilty of it.

So, then just to confirm you're defending Obama's use of signing statements in this matter?

Should we conclude that when you previously seemed to be against them that was just partisan hackery?

Obama's use of signing statements seems to be in line with the previous Presidents before him, excluding W. So his use of them is not unprecedented nor overhanded. His use of signing statements is also grossly off-topic.

I can see you are seething with outrage.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Obama's use of signing statements seems to be in line with the previous Presidents before him, excluding W. So his use of them is not unprecedented nor overhanded. His use of signing statements is also grossly off-topic.

It does seem to be on topic. IIRC, Congress passed a law saying that nobody would get released from Gitmo without their OK. When Obama signed that law, he seems to have put in a signing statement which lets him completely ignore the law if he feels like it.

While it appears that this is a legal way to use signing statements ... for some reason ... it does render the entire process of passing laws completely redundant. While that sort of end run is a good thing to have when the entire legislative branch of government decides to take a decade off, it's just really weird.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Google Bush's secret signing orders.

 

[dismal]

Google Bush's secret signing orders.

If ksen doesn't come along soon to point out this issue has abso-fucking-lutlely nothing to do with George Bush I'm going to start to wonder if <edit>.

 

[laughing dog]

This way the USA can drone strike these guys.

 

[Ford]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

I would counter that you're reflexively attacking Obama...just like everyone else on the right. Did Obama do something? Quick, mighty keyboard warriors...ATTACK!

But yes, bringing up Bush is relevant in the same way that it would be relevant to discuss Lyndon Johnson or John Kennedy's conduct in Vietnam when discussing Nixon's role.

The war in Afghanistan - like the Vietnam War - is a singular event. Like Vietnam, it has spanned enough time to necessitate the involvement of more than one Presidential administration. The same thing would apply to Korea (Truman and Eisenhower) or WWII (Roosevelt and Truman). Wanna talk about it? Gotta talk about the whole thing. Nothing should be off limits.

If you want to narrow the focus and talk about releasing prisoners captured on the "field of battle" as it were in Afghanistan, then it is absurd to claim it has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush, because his administration fucking captured them, set up the fucking prison, and wrote the fucking rules for handling their internment, treatment, and release. In fact the entire "Unitary Executive" concept which Obama is operating under was implemented in the Bush administration. Obama is using - rightly or wrongly - the fucking tools developed by his predecessor.

Asserting that we abso-fucking-lutely cannot even reference Bush when talking about the War on Terror at large, Afghanistan specifically, or the men held at Gitmo is abso-fucking-lutely idiotic.

Was it a wise trade Obama made? Mmm...what could we use as a comparison? What other President has released prisoners from Guantanamo Bay?

dismal says "you abso-fucking-lutely cannot use the only other President in history to do so as a comparison!"


That's absolutely fucked reasoning.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Was it really wise to exchange a terrorist for terrorists? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Arctish]

Was it really wise to exchange a terrorist for terrorists? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Was is really wise to exchange five deserters for one deserter? I don't think those Afghan guys had their government's permission to go to Cuba.

Come to think of it, I don't think they had visas either.

 

[Tristan Scott]

…
Many Republicans that were criticizing the Obama Administration for not making a deal calling the POW a hero are now criticizing Obama for making a deal, calling the POW a traitor and scrubbing their websites of their previous comments (ala* Winston Smith and the Department of Truth)

Well yeah, they wanted him to get off the stick and make a trade before the midterm so they could have something to go ballistic over.

 

[dismal]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

I would counter that you're reflexively attacking Obama...just like everyone else on the right. Did Obama do something? Quick, mighty keyboard warriors...ATTACK!

I don't recall attacking Obama on this issue. Perhaps you should spend more time addressing arguments people are actually making and less time droning on about George Bush.

 

[pegasus8]

Gee was it really wise to release 100 Gitmo Haji party boys a few years ago? Oops that does not count in the alternative universe of the 24/7 hate media.

Obama needs to do something and bring home Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. If Obama does nothing to bring home one of our own then Congress should think seriously about starting impeachment proceedings. We do not leave anyone in uniform behind, especially for five years in Taliban captivity.

Obama should not have traded those Taliban terrorists for that one converted Muslim "deserter." Never mind that there has not even been a formal military investigation in the Bergdahl incident. He is guilty, a traitor and a closet Taliban terrorist or something like that. And how do we know this to be true? Well Shaun "Klannity" Hannity said so on TV. See again nothing but the truth.

So I think that Congress should start impeachment proceedings ASAP. Why? Because Obama broke the law or something and something Benghazi. Or we can make up some more shit later as the story unfolds. You know like blaming guys KIA searching for him.Good thing that the military and the Pentagon keeps track of our guys over there and the daily casualty reports. Too bad most of America's amazing minions of the masses do not realize that by ending hostilities with a sovereign nation like Afghanistan international laws require that America release all of her " detained" Afghanis in Gitmo so we do not look totally stupid in the international arena. But then I hear that McCain's sweetheart Lindsey Graham told America that by releasing these 5 Taliban dudes it will make it all messy and flustered to release anymore. Now that is why our foreign policy decisions have kept our boys in the shit hole of a country for over 10 years. This is what's called focus, determination and nothing but utter patriotism. Well patriotism if you will do anything to make this administration look bad; including getting one of our own back from the hell hole!

Yep noting like having a surreal unsanctioned prison housing detainees that are neither POW's or enemy combatants on the east coast of a supposedly evil communist island country I always like to say.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[fromderinside]

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, if you recall, walked off from his unit and later got captured by the Taliban. It seems to me it is not very wise to exchange somebody like that for five terrorists who will probably resume their terrorist activities shortly. Doubly so if the exchange involves a likely violation of federal law which Obama signed only recently.

Why did he do this? What possible benefit does it bring him?

First a little refreshing of righty memories who reset every 100 days or so. "Israel releases over 1000 prisoners for one of their own". http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/w...tive-israeli-soldier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Second they aren't terrorists. They are enemy combatants Taliban versus real terrorists liker members of al Quada.

Third they haven't been convicted, they can't be convicted, because they were tortured

Fourth a walk off isn't an AWOL or desertion until it has been adjudged to be so. He was missing for 30 minutes before he was captured by Taliban so its unlikely he'll be found either to desert or be AWOL. He probably left a duty station, which seems to be common for this ill disciplined unit, which means he probably will be given a general discharge.

Fifth he has a history of wandering around the neighborhood observing the local flora an fauna for which he has not previously been been cited. He is a 'good' soldier, according to his superiors, operating in a dysfunctional unit.

So we have here a bogus issue where our principle of bringing back our own trumps what ever what ifs with which right wing hand wringers with no memories complete lack of knowledge of typical exchanges come up.

Bravo for making the effort for another; tempest by genuflecters to the God for which no evidence can be found, empty chattel with no cattle, basis for the need for belief by these poor souls, awesome exercise in emptiness of awareness or intellect, a monster demonstration of nothing.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Don't we have to let the detainees go anyway? Or do we have to keep them forever, like luggage?